QT vs. DivX (pic)

[jmroberts70]

Just thought I'd post this pic I made comparing the 94.8MB QT file with the 36.6MB DivX file. I was working on getting a decent copy of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs Maps video and thought that the HIGHER file size would assure me of better picture quality.

Now I'm sure that there are a lot of variables in how a video is encoded that will change the picture quality but I was pretty surprised when I found that the QT video was not quite as good as my original DivX. There were also a lot more color problems with the QT video that I was used to seeing. It may be just a bad encoding job on the Apple side but I was always under the impression that QT video had a much greater ability to render high quality video than most anything else. I guess I was mis-informed...

 

[CrimandEvil]

Quicktime is great for streaming (try comparing a WMV and quicktime movie trailor) but not for making videos and such

 

[mayakindaguy]

just to point it out, i think those are two different frames.

 

[defcom_1]

I was under the impression that QT was just a wrapper, just like avi. I've had QT files encoded as MPEG-4. You can get comparable quality in both file sizes.

 

[jmroberts70]

Originally posted by mayakindaguy
just to point it out, i think those are two different frames.

You are correct. The frames are off from each other by a fraction of a second. It wasn't easy getting them might I add. My only tool for getting the correct frame was the pause button so being "pretty close" was good enough for me!

 

[mayakindaguy]

lol. then that's pretty good. I thought u were using premiere or after affects. wow. pause button, now that takes some skills.